Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion by Senator Roberts. From the outset, I want to thank Senator Roberts for bringing forward this motion. It is vitally important, as Senator Roberts says, that we do understand the impact that the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 will have on our regional communities. The fact is that this impact was not adequately assessed through the Senate committee process and that the Senate committee refused, even after my request, to actually take the committee to regional communities that would be impacted by the outcomes of this bill. Despite that committee then making recommendations through the main committee report that, yes, the bill be passed with amendments, it did not outline what those amendments were, what they would mean or how they had been given due consideration. What we then went through last week was a series of amendments coming through this place. Some of those amendments were still being negotiated after the bill had been introduced into this place. They were being drafted as we were having our second reading debates. Further amendments were still being negotiated after we had entered the committee stage and had not been circulated when we entered into the committee stage. So anyone who thinks that this chamber was able to give due consideration to those amendments and what they meant for our Murray-Darling communities has been seriously misled by anyone who purports to know exactly what happened. I want to give one example of that. That is this question of whether or not the Commonwealth can now lease water either from a farmer or to a farmer and whether that leasing arrangement contributes to the water recovery targets under the bill.

There has been correspondence between Minister Plibersek and Senator David Van from Victoria. This correspondence has now been distributed widely amongst stakeholders and it's flying around, so I feel fairly confident that I can actually refer to this correspondence. In that correspondence the minister said, 'I am advised that leased water will only count'—to a target—'if an entitlement is transferred to the Commonwealth and the water is contracted before the 31 December 2027 deadline.' Some people read that and interpret that as the lease arrangement will only contribute to a water recovery target if the Commonwealth purchases the water, the water is transferred to the Commonwealth before the December deadline and then, through some form of an arrangement, is leased back to the farmer.

Having read that, I obviously had some questions. I asked in the committee stage: can the government clarify for me if the leases form part of water recovery totals and which way they work? I was told that the act already indicates that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can hold rights as a lessee, which is true. I then went further to ask if it would contribute to the 450 target and I got read word for word the response I just quoted from Minister Plibersek's office.

Given that Senator Van has significant interest in this area as well, he also came in to ask for clarity about the leasing arrangements. It was a very confusing exchange in its entirety. Leasing is one of the tools in relation to the 450, but we never got clear whether the leasing is a one-way agreement or not. This is why we need to support this reference to a committee. These sorts of questions need to be thoroughly investigated so that communities can understand the implications of this bill.

A further issue that the minister referred to in her correspondence with Senator Van was the supply and constraints projects. These projects are controversial and have been controversial from the get-go because these projects make the difference between someone being able to actively managing their farmland and them having to enter an agreement to enable the Commonwealth to flood their productive land at a whim. There is no clarity of what the government's water amendment bill means to the supply and constraints projects. It is discussed in a no-regrets manner—the MDBA will write a road map as to how to do it. But we are not convinced.

There are also the social and economic considerations. The minister has said: 'Yes, we'll develop a structural adjustment package. We won't tell you how much might be in the package. We won't tell you how any such funds will be distributed. We won't tell you how they will be assessed.' In fact, there was even a suggestion that impacted communities themselves will have to prove what the negative social and economic impacts on their community are. Can you imagine that? That would mean in my home town the Edward River Council having to undertake a social and economic impact assessment to prove that the loss of up to 100 jobs at the Deniliquin rice mill, because of the reduction in rice deliveries year on year, was a direct result of water buybacks and water leaving our district. Why should it be up to communities to prove that? The burden of proof, the onus of proof, should be on the government. They should have to prove they are not having negative social and economic impacts.

But there's no such suggestion, and there is no clarity. This is why we absolutely need to support Senator Roberts's motion for a referral. We need to understand as well what the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council means. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.